Author Topic: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)  (Read 1356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
« on: January 14, 2005, 07:09:49 AM »
HR 47 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 47
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and

(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm' means--

(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);

(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or

(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).

(c) Enforcement of Right-

(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline Dali Llama

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
Re: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2005, 07:59:35 AM »
Quote from: LMM
HR 47 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 47
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

(1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

(2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person's family; and

(3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

(b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm' means--

(1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);

(2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or

(3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).

(c) Enforcement of Right-

(1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

(3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query

AYE[/color], vote Dali Llama.
AKA "Blademan52" from Marlin Talk

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26904
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2005, 10:05:01 AM »
This bothers me greatly. The Second Amendment is all the authority needed for self defense. It and the Declaration of Independance taken together should cover it.

There this is stated as RIGHTS. GOD given RIGHTS. When we start codifying it things move from rights to priviledges granted by government. If government can grant it they can withdraw it. I am of the opinion that is is just one more camoflaged step in taking away the Constitutional RIGHTS we already have.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Lawdog

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4464
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2005, 10:45:35 AM »
Quote from: Graybeard
This bothers me greatly. The Second Amendment is all the authority needed for self defense. It and the Declaration of Independance taken together should cover it.

There this is stated as RIGHTS. GOD given RIGHTS. When we start codifying it things move from rights to priviledges granted by government. If government can grant it they can withdraw it. I am of the opinion that is is just one more camoflaged step in taking away the Constitutional RIGHTS we already have.


Worries me too and for the same reasons.  What is needed is for a revamping of the court system.  Stop them from being so lenient on criminals.  I know of one case were two criminals were stopped from breaking into a mans travel trailer by the owner and they sued the guy for pointing a legal handgun at them.  The court found in favor of the criminals as they were unarmed at the time and awarded them $20,000 each plus costs.  This is justice?  Lawdog
 :D
Gary aka Lawdog is now deceased. He passed away on Jan. 12, 2006. RIP Lawdog. We miss you.

Offline mjbgalt

  • Trade Count: (26)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2005, 12:03:35 PM »
the esteemed Mr Beard has it right. when a piece of legislation is introduced to "outline" or "Reinforce" something which is already covered by the constitution, one would be wise to take notice and ask WHY.

the answer is pretty much what Lawdog just stated. to move it from a right to a privilege, and to say "we ALLOW you to......" instead of the government simply allowing freedoms we already have and simply restricting certain things. when government GIVES "rights" its not such a good thing.

-Matt
I have it on good authority that the telepromter is writing a stern letter.

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2005, 09:13:06 PM »
I'm greatly bothered by a couple of the responses here.   :eek:  :shock:


Wow what a surprise.


This is nothing more than a reinforcement of our Constitutional Right.  There is nothing here moving a God Given Right to a privilege.  There not conducting a Constitutional Convention and/or trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. At least the otherside hasn't tried that yet. I stress yet!
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline WNY_Whitetailer

  • Look at me I'm white and nerdy
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Gender: Male
  • Working...
    • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2005, 02:01:20 AM »
I took it the same way that LMM did...I guess it is all in your outlook when reading the original post.
Patience comes with age and You can't teach common sense

Offline 44 Man

  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2005, 07:20:25 AM »
BUT in a city where the residents are prohibited from owning and posessing a gun as in New York and Washington D.C., this will enable people to purchase and use the gun without fear for being procecuted.  Yes, the right is there in the Second Ammendment, and that has been infringed upon many times.  This would at least enact a federal law which would override the state and community laws against firearms.  I agree, this is not the way it should have to be, but let's support it as a step forward for our side and common sense.  44 Man
You are never too old to have a happy childhood!

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26904
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2005, 09:15:33 AM »
BUT once enacted and in place a few years IT and not the Constitution will be considered by courts the basis for this RIGHT turned priviledge. Then the next time the dumocraps control things it will be over turned in Congress and all those registered guns will be taken up and melted for scrap like they were in Australian and Great Britian.

So long term no one gains and everyone loses. No thanks.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2005, 06:35:27 PM »
Hell, you have federal judges out there now that can't properly interpret the Constitution. Just look at the 9th district. An enacted law can co exist with the Constitution. If it is unconstitutional it is null and void. But an enacted law can't replace, override or contradict a constitutional right. That doesn't mean an activist judge won't try, there doing that now without the enacted law in play.


1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.


There is a lot to gain....... more lost if it doesn't pass.
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline Scorpius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2005, 12:58:50 AM »
I guess it really depends on what kind of Riders get tagged on to the bill and how much it gets "improved" before it gets approved.  At lot of nasty things could get added on to appease the pro-gun control crowd.  As it stands right now, it doesn't look too bad, but.....it hasn't passed yet.  NO Bill makes it through both the House and Senate in it's original pristine condition.  Just have to wait and see.
Love 'em or hate 'em, guns are here to stay.  Whichever side you choose, please be informed.  
www.nra.org/
www.packing.org/
www.ofccpac.org/

Offline S.S.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2005, 04:49:37 AM »
You know it is really a sad state of affairs in "OUR COUNTRY"
when we are forced to place an eye of suspicion(sp) on everything
the legislators we put into office do!
But unfortulately we must be forever vigilant!
The Wolves have gotten quite proficient at portraying sheep!
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
"A wise man does not pee against the wind".

Offline 44 Man

  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2005, 10:05:20 AM »
Graybeard.  This law will be the LEAST of our problems if the 'Dumocrates' get back in!  They will have our constitution subserviant to the U.N. in record time, especially if Hillary gets in.  Then we will have U.N. troops on our soil to enforce their will.  Damn, sounds like a 'free fire zone'!  44 Man
You are never too old to have a happy childhood!

Offline myronman3

  • Moderator
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2005, 04:07:14 PM »
Quote
Then we will have U.N. troops on our soil to enforce their will


i took an oathe to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  if that day ever comes,  consider me off the deep end.   foreign troops, and who ever brought them here, are fair game.

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2005, 10:08:02 AM »
Hmmmmm, you telling me I can go any where in the United States of America freely and without "infringement" with a firearm as granted me by:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26904
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2005, 12:00:53 PM »
Dat's what it sez to me. Now for sure that is a right that is being infringed and they are working feverishly to abolish all together. Short another revolutionary war one day it will be abolished.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2005, 06:17:55 PM »
Hmmm, well until the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it as such don't matter squat what we think...... BUT if Congress passed a law spelling it out, which the U.S. Supreme Court would be hard pressed if not impossible to find unconstitutional under the Second Amendment well then the only threat would be the states arguing under the 10th Amendment there right to "regulate". Which is essentially our problem now.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Complacency will get us no where. The main reason for the mess we have now.
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2005, 11:22:30 PM »
This has been an interesting discussion and I have enjoyed, good thoughts on both sides.
I think that GB presents a better defense. IF, we/the courts accept the NEED for a law allowing for self defense we then, by default, accept as a fact  that the second amendment IS defined as a militia and not an individual liberty.
It is much easier to brush away a law than it is an amendment.
I think there has need to be a law allowing for self defense tying it back to the  second amendment, thereby defining the second amendment as it has always been accepted.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline LMM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2005, 07:02:24 AM »
I understand and don't disagree with what GB is saying.  But in the real world think it takes more....
LMM


"If you can blame guns for killing people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."
--Larry the Cable Guy

Offline 6Shooter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2005, 02:40:19 PM »
I agree with Mr. Greybeard. This new bill is not needed if the constitution is abided by. These cities that have made so called laws against gun ownership should be spit on and the so called law disregarded.
 I wish people would get their heads out of the sand and stand up for what they know is right.
 We already have a citizens self-defence act. It's called freedom, liberty, plain common sense.

Offline huntsman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2005, 03:24:51 AM »
I respectfully disagree with GB. While in principle he has the right idea, in practice we have all kinds of individual laws at the federal, state, and local level that do nothing more that define or interpret what is meant by the Constitution, or establish in law the specific powers the Constitution grants or assigns to our federal and state governments.

The Constitution itself is a set of guiding principles upon which our system of laws, checks and balances, and granted authority rests. This is not the same as a set of laws that warrant enforcement or obligate action. While every law must rest on firm ground supported by the Constitution, no law supercedes it or rises to the level of Constitutional authority. If the law is "brushed aside" at some later time, we will still have the 2nd Amendment as a defense against any other law or action that violates the rights it protects. We can defend both this law and the 2nd Amendment as separate and distinct entities.

The way I see it, the law can only help because it prevents individual bureaucracies, federal, state, and municipal governments from interpreting the 2nd Amendment to the detriment of the armed self-defender. In Texas, we rarely have self-defenders charged as the examples laid out in the bill, precisely because we have state laws that allow for self-defense much as this bill proposes. Having a federal law like this in place will mandate a change in many of these liberal-minded communities that inexplicably sock it to the self-defender and let the real criminals get away. The standing state and local statutes they rely upon for their prosecution of the self-defender will be hamstrung by this law.

Granted it may become distorted as it seeks passage in both houses, but let's keep our eyes fixed on it. Those who favor it should urge their representatives to back this bill.
There is no more humbling experience for man than to be fully immersed in nature's artistry.

Offline papajohn428

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 755
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2005, 11:30:26 AM »
I hope it passes.  I'll take all the congressionally-related rights-affirming stuff we can get.  If this stands the constitutionality challenge we know the dumbocraps will throw at it, it will only help to affirm the 2nd Amendment as a declaration of an "inalienable right".  

What I'd rather see is an effort to try and convict those who have broken their oath of office!  If they swore to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and then tried to subvert or change it, they are clearly guilty of violating that oath, and should be tried as traitors.  String a few of them up for treason, and the rest of the Lefties might get a clue about what it means to "protect and defend"!

I have raised my kids not to trust government at ANY level, and to question any government action they find unclear or misleading.  Enemies "Foreign and Domestic" are concepts they are very clear on, and none of them are pro-war, but if Powder Blue Helmets start appearing on American soil, they will very definately heed the call to arms.  As should every patriotic American!

Papajohn the Outraged American
If you can shoot home invaders, why can't you shoot Homeland Invaders?

Offline chris s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2005, 02:49:36 AM »
44man This will not override any state or local laws. The Feds say I can own class three weapons but NYS law prohibits  me from doing so.

Offline Lawdog

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4464
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2005, 09:18:42 AM »
chris s,

You're right.  From what I can find out it will not change any city, state laws already on the books.  Really don't see how it will change anything as it stands now.   Lawdog
 :D
Gary aka Lawdog is now deceased. He passed away on Jan. 12, 2006. RIP Lawdog. We miss you.

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26904
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2005, 10:46:51 AM »
OK then, so back to what I said to start with. What's the value in it? Why do it?


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline papajohn428

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 755
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2005, 03:29:15 PM »
Why do it?  Because the fact that the DOJ was willing to even look into the matter is a good sign, and the fact that they read the "individual" part into it makes any attack on the 2nd Amendment a lot more important.  Laws are only as good as their interpretation, and the fact that the DOJ sees what's written as affirming the rights of the individual speaks volumes.  Any Liberal judge who tries to define the U.S. Constitution a certain way to further his own political agenda will have this study thrown in his face, and that's a good thing.  The Ninth Circuit is full of "New World Order" types who would love to tell us all that the 2nd Amendment is all about state militias, this document shows them that, with good reasoning, the language is congruent throughout, and means exactly what it says, and is not subject to a loose "interpretation" by someone who wants to second-guess the founding fathers.  They chose the words they did for a reason, and the reason was so some single-minded fool with an axe to grind can't take what was said then and put his own spin on it.  I think we should all be forwarding this to our local liberal media, and telling them to stop interpreting our constitution, unless we can also take liberties with the meaning of the First Amendment as well.  One defends the other, once they realize this, we might gain an ally, even if they don't say it outwardly.

Graybeard, you and I agree on most things, but in this case, I'll take an exception to your stance.  This is a piece of work the U. S. Government commissioned, to get the opinion of people they trusted, about an issue that they need to be very careful about.  Anything put forth by them that reaffirms what the rest of us already knew is a good thing.  To me, it's not about them granting us a privelege, it's about them realizing they don't have anything to say about this issue, the founding fathers did it for them, in clear terms, so it's NOT an issue.  The Second Amendment stands on its own language, and this only verifies it.  How that can be seen in a negative light, in today's political climate, is something I don't get.  I think it ought to be required reading in every state capital, by every legislator!  I'd also like to see it brought up in our schools, but I kinda doubt our "educators" i.e. indoctrinators, would let that happen without a fight!  Maybe they should be the next target of "clarification".

Maybe a fight is exactly what's called for....... :eek:

Papajohn
If you can shoot home invaders, why can't you shoot Homeland Invaders?

Offline ShottieMan

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Gender: Male
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2005, 03:29:58 PM »
Quote
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.


This seems to be the most important part of the whole deal to me. I agree with both sides. It does seem kinda of senseless for the government to redefine what has been etched in stone for years. But the quoted part above is an example of what redefining can do. I, along with alot of other Americans ,will go to great length's to protect my family and home. BUT, when a home intruder can sue YOU for protecting yourself, it's BULLSPIT. These little redefining's are only setting boundaries. Without these boundaries, alot of those felons will find loopholes in the law and turn US into the felons!!

Offline Lawdog

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4464
Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introdu
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2005, 10:14:06 AM »
The only problem with so-called laws voted on by Congress is they can/are changed with those that come into power.  Also there is nothing in this law to stop frivolous, STUPID lawsuits.  It’s not going to protect anyone that brandish/fires a weapon when he shouldn’t have.  Sorry but I don’t see the need.  Lawdog
 :D
Gary aka Lawdog is now deceased. He passed away on Jan. 12, 2006. RIP Lawdog. We miss you.